So, is it safe to deploy the new year range feature on the main site domain, you think?

Alhadis wrote:

Are you sure? Consider the following...

Band A Active 1982-1984, split up for four years. Reactivated in 1988-1993 before changing name to Band B in 1993. Played that way for a few years before changing name to Band C in 1996. This is how it'd be presented on the page:

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:24 amPosts: 2785Location: A step closer to home

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:39 pm

I think I get the point Alhadis is trying to make. Without the pipes, there's no way to tell whether the second year range applies to band A or band B - i.e., was band A active from 1982-1984 and 1988-1993, or was band B active from 1988-1993 and 1993-1996?

Except I don't have a way to magically tell them apart. I can try to do some convoluted hack to check if the "next" band name is different and put a pipe instead of a comma, but then you'd still get something like this:

So with this new 'Years active' section of the band pages, wouldn't that make the 'Formed in' area relatively useless for the bands that have been updated to now use the years active? On these bands updated thus far it generally seems to phase out the 'formed in' bit when the 'years active' serves the same purpose and exceeds it. Of course it's still vital to bands who haven't been updated or the info is too obscure, but for the ones that are updated, formed in seems removable. That's just my thoughts though. I do really like the years active addition, it's a nice touch.

_________________

lord_ghengis wrote:

Don't Sing. Don't Eat. Stop Exist.The So Far, So Good, So What of our generation.

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:24 amPosts: 2785Location: A step closer to home

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:12 am

TadakatsuH0nda wrote:

So with this new 'Years active' section of the band pages, wouldn't that make the 'Formed in' area relatively useless for the bands that have been updated to now use the years active? On these bands updated thus far it generally seems to phase out the 'formed in' bit when the 'years active' serves the same purpose and exceeds it. Of course it's still vital to bands who haven't been updated or the info is too obscure, but for the ones that are updated, formed in seems removable. That's just my thoughts though. I do really like the years active addition, it's a nice touch.

If we're having an artists by country feature, can we have an advanced search for artists too? That'd also be great.

Morrigan wrote:

Except I don't have a way to magically tell them apart. I can try to do some convoluted hack to check if the "next" band name is different and put a pipe instead of a comma, but then you'd still get something like this:

As Zorg said, I really think having a little more there for users unfamiliar with the site would be helpful. Something along the lines of "We need a way of verifying the information you provide or it can't be added - scans of booklets, news posts, or band contact info."

Maybe something like this up front to help keep reports more effective from the start (rather than simply saying a source is recommended). viewtopic.php?f=3&t=93021

But aside from that, I have a question about the year range thing. In the case of Exhumator, they changed their name to Five Iron Frenzy and picked up a ska style. Obviously, FIF is not featured on the site. However, when I try to add FIF, i have issues reflecting that band's reunions. It either shows FIF as two entries, or shows the FIF for the first time frame, and shows the second time frame as applying to Exhumator.

_________________One part the Führer, one part the Pope

Opus wrote:

there are only 12 active metal musicians in Finland, and those 3239 bands are just different combinations of those 12 musicians.

I forget if I have mentioned this before: On band pages, the logo appears above the band picture, but on the editing page, the "band pic" field is above the "logo" field. It's a bit confusing that way, seems like it should be the other way around.

Sorry if I'm being a nuisance here (which I know I most probably am). I was able to write "test" at the end of one of the song's lyrics just like you were and I was also able to remove it afterwards, but I'm still unable to fix those typos that are on almost every song. Could it be that only small modifications are possible on that page?

_________________

vacca wrote:

"Pointwhoring is no fun. Pointwhoring endangers the life and happiness of millions. It must stop. We appeal in particular to the youth of today, stop the madness. There are better things in life."

Not sure if this is the proper place to report it (if not, I apologize), but when attempting to post my review for Children of Technology's latest EP, the data isn't going through and I'm getting the orange warning prompts to enter the title, score, and text. There was a report open which I resolved the other day, and all other reviews have been going through normally. Attempts to 'save draft' and 'preview' this one are also hanging up while loading. Anyway thanks for your time.